Merged So there was melted steel

NoahFence said:
Your entire premise of this retarded meteorite meme is that some unknown architect is right about there being formerly molten steel in that item, and that he's the authority on it because he happens to be standing next to it.


Bottom line this for me if at all possible:

Could he have been mistaken?

YES or NO?
Click to expand...

Still waiting for that "infallibility" proof you were screaming about.

MM
 
Miragememories said:
Still waiting for that "infallibility" proof you were screaming about.

MM
Click to expand...

Care to actually reply to my post MM? Or do you only selectively read things?

As I said to Noah, I dont care what you were saying before only what you're saying now.. but you definitely contradicted yourself about expertise.
 
Miragememories said:
It is called "put up, or shut up", where I come from.

Show where I have said Bart was infallible, or could not be wrong.

MM
Click to expand...
The whole assumption that he wouldn't said it on live television or on a documentary if he thought it were an inaccurate way to phrase something. That if he says molten steel it's his "professional opinion" and that anyone saying otherwise must specifically address the use of the phrase and be named. That all other conclusions don't matter, etc. etc. if the phrase contains "molten steel"
 
Edx said:
Care to actually reply to my post MM? Or do you only selectively read things?

As I said to Noah, I dont care what you were saying before only what you're saying now.. but you definitely contradicted yourself about expertise.
Click to expand...

That abortion you call a post?

Yes I will reply to it.

MM
 
He won't answer anything, all he does is dodge, which is indicative of someone who is not honest in what they are saying.
 
The Platypus said:
He won't answer anything, all he does is dodge, which is indicative of someone who is not honest in what they are saying.
Click to expand...

It's hilarious. He already said the guy could be wrong, but he couldn't be wrong because he's an expert in building stuff. He didn't need to be an expert in molten steel, but anybody else with an opinion is wrong if they don't come to the same conclusion. :confused:
 
Edx said:
""You clearly dont think he was infallible because you ignore his professional opinion on the collapses and therefore, I guess, you think he is a big fat liar, insane or unbelievably incompetent to think the towers collapsed from fire and that there was no thermite or explosives required.

You have been saying things like this for pages and pages...."
Click to expand...
Miragememories said:
"His comment stated opinion that the WTC debris sample contained molten steel can only mean one thing, no matter how many ways you attempt to spin it."
Click to expand...

Been saying what?

I certainly have not voiced the kind of characterizations you described above.

And if you are going to quote me, at least learn to do it properly.

If you would learn to read and think before reacting, it would become quite clear to you that I felt his statement had only a single possible interpretation.

That is not the same as saying I think Bart could not be wrong.

But his professional statement based on a firsthand examination holds far more credibility than Grizzly Bear's study of some image on his home pc.

MM
 
So there IS a chance he could be wrong.

At least we have that out of you, finally. A concrete statement.

Having said that,

He IS wrong.
 
Miragememories said:
Been saying what?

I certainly have not voiced the kind of characterizations you described above.

And if you are going to quote me, at least learn to do it properly.

If you would learn to read and think before reacting, it would become quite clear to you that I felt his statement had only a single possible interpretation.

That is not the same as saying I think Bart could not be wrong.

But his professional statement based on a firsthand examination holds far more credibility than Grizzly Bear's study of some image on his home pc.

MM
Click to expand...

His "professional statement based on a firsthand examination" doesn't hold so much credibility that it trumps everything and everyone else that indicates he's wrong.

But 911 kooks never understand that with their cherry picked "witness" games.
 
Last edited:
The Platypus said:
His "professional statement based on a firsthand examination" doesn't hold so much credibility that it trumps everything and everyone else that indicates he's wrong.

But 911 kooks never understand that with their cherry picked "witness" games.
Click to expand...


his "professional opinion" regarding molten steel has no more credibility than if he make a statement about brain surgery. Both topics are far beyond an architect's area of professional expertise. :rolleyes:
 
The Platypus said:
His "professional statement based on a firsthand examination" doesn't hold so much credibility that it trumps everything and everyone else that indicates he's wrong.

But 911 kooks never understand that with their cherry picked "witness" games.
Click to expand...

Like someone sitting at home staring at a 2D photo image.

I fail to see how referencing an architect, the head of a firm professionally contracted by the NY/NJ Port Authority to collect, de-contaminate, and catalog mostly steel artifacts from the WTC ruins, constitutes as "cherry picking".

MM
 
Miragememories said:
Like someone sitting at home staring at a 2D photo image.

I fail to see how referencing an architect, the head of a firm professionally contracted by the NY/NJ Port Authority to collect, de-contaminate, and catalog mostly steel artifacts from the WTC ruins, constitutes as "cherry picking".

MM
Click to expand...



Im not going to bother replying to your latest post and predicted response to it (see my reply to Noah) because I dont much care if you want to claim you never meant to say he couldn't be wrong. Whatever. No point going around and around picking on every single word if you want to deny your own argument.

Bottom line is that there are ENDLESS examples I showed you before where people (and I also showed you fire experts) incorrectly said there was molten steel in other fires in the same way as Voorsanger did. If they can be so easily wrong, why are you so convinced that Bart Voorsanger is not?

It is COMMON for people and experts to incorrectly say there was molten steel in fires. COMMON. Got that?

Explosions in fires are expected
Molten metal in fire is expected
People reporting molten steel - incorrectly - is expected

Therefore whatever Voorsanger said is entirely uninteresting, because its the kind of thing we expect people to say.

Are you constantly ignoring this issue because you don't like it or is it just for trolling purposes?
 
Last edited:
Like someone sitting at home staring at a 2D photo image.
Click to expand...

Here's a 2D image:

shuttle_endeavour.jpg


Am I able to determine using that 2D image that the object in question is a Space Shuttle, or would I have to be present in Florida when it launched to be sure?
 
Who am I kidding?

You know the answer. Of course I can tell from the photo.

That's EXACTLY how obvious it is that your precious architect was WRONG.

No. Molten. Steel.
 
Miragememories said:
Like someone sitting at home staring at a 2D photo image.

I fail to see how referencing an architect, the head of a firm professionally contracted by the NY/NJ Port Authority to collect, de-contaminate, and catalog mostly steel artifacts from the WTC ruins, constitutes as "cherry picking".

MM
Click to expand...

Of course you fail to see how your cherry picking your architect or how he's wrong. That would interfere with your cult programmed agenda.

But everyone else isn't brainwashed by your cult, so we can see it.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom